BBC struggles to find answers over ‘Science Betrayed’ programme; British Medical Journal battens down the hatches

By John Stone

My letter to the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit:

I forward correspondence relating to the programme 'Science Betrayed'….

I request that the Editorial Complaints Unit look into this matter in an impartial way. I note that I originally wrote to Adam Rutherford the programme presenter asking whether he knew at the time programme went on air that Prof Pepys was in business partnership with MMR manufacturers GSK. He didn't deign to reply but the issue was plainly whether the programme makers realised that this was not an independent opinion. Either they knew and didn't say, or Prof Pepys did not divulge this relevant information. It is disturbing that neither the programme's producers, or the acting editor of BBC have found any way of replying to that question (that Prof Pepys is entitled to work with GSK is beyond dispute). While Andrew Wakefield is being accused of everything under the sun there is apparently no imperative on his accusers to disclose their competing interests or for the BBC, out of pure objectivity, to report. So (1) the presenter doesn't answer, (2) the producers won't answer and (3) neither will their on-line manager. The best we can conclude is that they have been embarrassed.

Regarding the second matter, I would point out that it only arose because the CHS blog pointed out (HERE and HERE ) that Mr Deer's accusations of fraud, such as they were, hinged on the claim that Wakefield altered information from GP notes, which was impossible because neither he nor any of his co-authors had access to the GP notes at the time: they did, however, have the very important red books (or very unimportant red books according to Mr Deer). So now your producers have shifted the ground to a tenuous and unwarranted reading of the Lancet paper, claiming that it said there that the GP notes had been used. But why would the paper have claimed such a thing which would be so out of the way in UK hospital practice? Which consultants routinely ask for all a patients GP notes to be forwarded? It seems much more likely that people under pressure are now making things up on the hoof.

I would add that apart from the missing disclosures already listed in the correspondence that an unbiased and properly researched programme should have pointed out the unusual arrangement that Mr Deer had with GMC lawyers so that he could go on reporting the case in the media without being named as complainant, and without having to give evidence (see Melanie Phillips A Deer in the Headlights HERE). It should have been mentioned that a week before Mr Deer first launched his fraud allegations in the Sunday Times in February 2009 the newspaper's proprietor, Mr James Murdoch, joined the board of GSK with a responsibility to review "external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation" (HERE), and the British Medical Journal and Fiona Godlee (who was also interviewed in the programme), and who commisioned the recent articles are in business partnership with MMR manufacturer Merck, and their recently established awards are sponsored by both Merck and GSK (HERE). This would have been competent and fair reporting, and would have given the public a balanced view of what they were listening to.

Meanwhile, BMJ have failed to publish my civil and germane letter to Michael Fitzpatrick, who reviewed the programme for them:-

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Elementary protocol and conflicts"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder whether Michael Fitzpatrick would bring his experience as a medical practitioner in the UK to bear upon Brian Deer's assertion in the programme under review [1] that Andrew Wakefield was an incompetent doctor because the 'Lancet paper' [2] incorporated data from what Deer termed 'baby books' or more properly Personal Child Health Records (red books) and not the GP notes that Deer made use of in bringing his allegations of fraud. Would he not agree with me that it would be most unusual for a GP to forward an entire set of patients notes with a referral but absolutely routine for parents of young children to attend medical appointments with their red books which contain lots of important information? And would he not also agree that the referral would not have been to Wakefield, who as we know was a researcher at the hospital, but to Prof Walker-Smith who ran the paediatric gastro-enterology clinic, and according to the paper compiled the patient histories?

I wonder where he sees the incompetence and irregularities in this?

Also if he is being incredibly fastidious about competing interests should he not in 2004 when writing in the Lancet about MMR have disclosed his trusteeship of Sense about Sciences which was at the time supported by MMR manufacturers and defendants GSK [3], and should not Adam Rutherford or Prof Mark Pepys have disclosed in the programme under review that Pepys heads a business consortium between University College London and GSK [4]?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Danish study that is most often pointed to as the "definitive study" to prove the MMR vaccine was safe and did not cause autism. It has now been declared a fraud and the researcher is indicted. Perhaps the study wasn't even really done..Facts are evolving

I appreciate your activism and dedication more than I can properly express in a comment. Truly you make the world a better place to be in, as do all of the editors of age of autism. You are all a gift to humanity in my opinion. HOwever, one thing that consistently bothers me is different iterations of the idea of saying, for example, " we are not saying there are no benefits to vaccination"... The thing that I seriously wonder is how can any positive or beneficial assessment truly be claimed in absence of any good science, as in not having truly good or truly independent comparisons of outcomes of vax versus unvax in health? The only positive aspect or success of a vaccination program in absence of this minimum standard of science required to make such declaration, would then in my opinion only be that profits have been made and public policy mandates have shown to have successful compliance.

I do not by any means think that benefit from the aspect of health or disease prevention on the macro scale can reasonably be declared in anyway. When science through mass media and government (acting though a capacity of institutional capture) declares clear benefit of disease control success through vaccination program, I think it is a diversion. The real question is more what is health and has it been improved or can it be by suggested measures.

The vaccination program has not proved to provide any benefit to overall health of populations. The benefit that can be declared is that of profiteering and compliance on wide-scale.

Just take chicken pox -- a clear link to shingles which is now on the rise exponentially since intro of the vax. Looking at just the factor of lessening the incidence of chicken pox to declare victory in improved health outcome is not looking at entire picture. Yet victory and benefit is declared and can only be done by removing the totality of long term health out of the equation to declare such benefit.

When a broader scientific framework is set-up defining benefit, what emerges is a picture for population as whole vaccinations indeed might be one of the greatest scientific fallacies of all time -- beyond just the issue of necessary danger to the as of yet un-identified population presenting the highest risk of severe injury at the time of vaccination.
I just don't see that any benefit to overall health can truly be declared unless many factors are removed from measures that would define broad benefits and unless scope of those benefits continue to be defined narrowly and unconnected to health in a more macro sense.

Autism is no longer a rare "disease". In the US there is now an official rate of 1 in 110 among children while in the UK a figure of 1 in 64 has been detected. There are harrowing ways which have been recounted in these columns about how autism can end up being lethal, but the more significant point is that it is for life.

With regard to Africa the real issue is how it can replicate the favourable living conditions in the developed world: you won't ever be able to vaccinate a population to good health without the benefits of sanitation, clean water, good nutrition. And we are not saying there are no benefits to vaccination, we are saying that not enough care is taken, and it is dismaying to here someone like you arrogantly dismissing the experiences of families (as doctors routinely do, thus destroying honest information).

Incidentally, it is not a matter of choice whether you vaccinate or not in the US: the ever extending schedule is mandated.

If you don't want to use vaccines don't. Its your choice. But the fact remains, you cannot use personal stories (anecdotes) to establish your claims because there are so many other factors that you may not have taken into account.

Here in Africa thousands of children die every year from disease you seem to think are harmless. Even if vaccines do cause autism, its benefits far outweigh the chance of getting a rare disease such as autism, which affects a insignificantly small group in the population. You might maybe get autism, you WILL get measles, mumps and rubella. A child stands a good chance of getting maimed for life or dieing from these diseases. These are facts, and not speculation like vaccines causing autism.

James, the purported "ethylmercury debunking" you speak of says that autism continued to go up after thimerosal was"removed" from pediatric vaccines in 2001 (some say 1999, but that was when it was first SUGGESTED, not when pediatric vaccines actually began to be produced without thimerosal).

However, thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines continued to be in widespread use until as late as 2004, as the vaccine manufacturers continued to sell and distribute them for as long as their shelf life was good. Our large (3 offices) pediatric practice was still giving them in 2004.

In addition, 90% of flu shots are preserved with thimerosal. Pregnant women and children under 3 are given the shot rather than the thimerosal-free FluMist because FluMist is a live-virus vaccine.

The authors of the study are saying that most of the increase is likely caused by something that pregnant women or infants are exposed to, or a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
“There’s genetics and there’s environment. And genetics don’t change in such short periods of time,” according to Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a researcher at UC Davis’ M.I.N.D. Institute, a leading autism research facility.

James Cole says:-
Oh, and by the way - Jenni Allen seems to be slightly confused with regard to Adam Rutherford's work for THES. His article (singular, you will note) was published long after the THES was sold by News International

NOT CONFUSED JIMMY!! If you had bothered to read the link I provided you would have realised that I was quoting from Adam Rutherford's OWN internet site and the information provided therein!! The confusion is all yours.http://adamrutherford.com/

Murdoch bought up the The Times and The Sunday Times, presumably to provide his News International organisation with some 'respectability'.(In the UK there is currently a huge scandal going on about phone tapping and internet snooping involving Murdoch's News of the World and a host of celebrities and royal family members. Two persons have been jailed and two more were arrested last week. NI has set aside an estimated £20 million pounds to compensate persons and draw a line under the scandal-some hope!!)NI still owns both UK Times newspapers!!

To James, Whatever theory or hypothesis anyone makes for autism must not only include what has happened in the UK and the US, but it must explain why, after introducing Hib and Hep B vaccines, with mercury in India in about year 2000, we saw a sudden increase in autism in India. I suppose that your theory also needs to account for the Somalian immigrants to the US, whose children were sometimes vaccinated several times over, and have an incredibly high level of autism- something like one in 30 children.
Claims that autism is not falling despite changes in vaccines are somewhat unreliable, In the US, the last good statistics we have are for 1998, long before mercury was removed from vaccines. In fact,as far as I know, no one has any reliable data about how much mercury is still in the vaccines. There were many of us, including my doctor daughter in USA, who made the error of thinking that all mercury was removed in 2000 in the US. We discovered later that mercury vaccines were used even up to 2008 and that companies had their own problems reducing mercury in their manufacturing processes. We are even told that companies are allowed to describe their vaccines as having one microgram of mercury, when in fact they may contain 4. Does anyone here care to weigh in on this topic? Michael Wagnitz , a trace analysis chemist, describes how he did analyses of vaccine samples and found some to be hundreds of times above hazardous waste levels(in mercury )Obviously that was not what was stated on the insert.
And after that, I would like to give the example of a boy , diagnosed with autism in California, about 5 years back who had only a mild case of Aspergers. No one in his well-educated family, even realised that he might need some diagnosis until he was 7. Now, I would like someone to explain to me how that boy got included in" autism". Some years back a boy like him could not have been included in the autism diagnosis category. Has some kind of policy change come about that every child who has any kind of mild symptoms , now gets diagnosed autistic? My point is that we need a lot of answers , that we are not getting before we move on. And many of us are wondering why it seems to be so difficult or impossible to get the answers. I am not familiar with the situation in the UK, but I would say - Do we have any idea what are the other sources of mercury there doing to children- the fish consumption and the coal burning? and possibly other sources? And do we know what is the level of autism of recently diagnosed kids? Im not sure whether you have actually seen autistic kids- There is an incredible difference between the mildly and severely affected. Simply giving one diagnosis of "autism" , will not work here- not from a scientific standpoint,( if anyone cares about science anymore )

The Denmark study is a fraud and invalid. The incidence of autism increased with the withdrawal of thimerosal from all vaccines because another large Copenhagen clinic was added the study in 1992 at the same time. Then in 1995 other outpatient clinics were added. The growing numbers of autism were due to the increase of patients into the study base. What kind of study changes the patient base during the study, and at the same time withdrawals thimerosal? Only those who know how to manipulate studies.

Also, if I may quote Dr. Boyd Haley on another aspect of the Danish study, “I have been calling this work fraud every since it came out, even at the 2004 IOM Committee meeting where Dr. Marie McCormick ended my questioning of Dr. Hviid, who was presenting the Danish data, because he would not, or could not tell me the autism rates in the USA vs Denmark---he feigned not understanding my question because, as shown in their graph above, the maximum rate of autism was less than 4/10,000 in Denmark in 2000 whereas in the USA the rate was 67/10,000 having increased from about 3-4/10,000 from 1985 and earlier. This makes all the Danish studies invalid, it is like studying the effect of mosquitoes on the spread of malaria and doing the studies in Alaska instead of Panama. The colored arrows and comments were put in this slide by me to show how this data was manipulated to appear to cause an increase in autism rate after the removal of thimerosal. One educated in epidemiological sciences has to be really incompetent to not find this deceptive utilization of the Danish data-----this apparently includes the responsible individuals at the CDC and in the AAP.”

Of course, then an author of some of the key Danish studies vanished.

“Key pro-vaccine studies in The Journal of the American Medical Association, The American Journal of Preventative Medicine and the American Medical Association appearing to show no link between autism and mercury have also been based on the Danish data. The validity of all these studies will also now be called into question.”

MMR is a live vaccine and doesn’t contain thimerosal. Therefore, MMR would not necessarily be associated with the rise of autism in Canada due thimerosal. However, it can and does cause adverse events via its biological constituents. Other vaccines did and still DO contain thimerosal, such as tetanus, HIB, meningococcal, and seasonal flu and swine flu, and at high levels; up to 25 mcg, which translates to as much as 50,000 ppb. I think that’s a fairly significant factor that could induce the onset of neurological disorders considering Hg will destroy neurite membrane structures at 20 ppb.

So when the Hg was removed from vaccines, it wasn’t removed from all vaccines. In addition, there other toxic elements added that are just as neurologically damaging. The Hepatitis B vaccine given to infants for absolutely no reason now contains 225 mcg. of aluminum. Keep in mind they receive 3 doses of this. And then what study proves the safety of multiple vaccine interactions?

James, anyone can read propaganda, but not everyone has a mind to do the research and get the facts. If you were to carefully examine ALL of the information available you may unintentionally develop an attitude of humility. It would be incorrect and somewhat arrogant to assume that everyone submitting comments on this site is an idiot.

James;
Like what Anne said;---- we did not just have autism and say oh I wonder why that is????

Nope, we had some very good clues - we are not saying this because that sounds like a good theory - let's just blame the vaccine.

What happened to Annes
Happened to mine too.
Only it was 24 hours - it was six hours after a DPT shot he had a strok.

Before all that though there was ignorant people in the medical profession that didn't have a clue what a vaccine reaction was.

Before the stroke we had plenty of warning about something wrong with the vaccines:like Kawaskai's in both kids, both kids were passing out with rapid breathing, both kids had high temperatures with the vaccines, both kids had high SED rates, they developed heart murmurs because their heart valves became inflamed, one kid's left ventricle in its heart swelled out and was described as boot shape from an X ray they took of his heart.

After the stroke well then we had stoke like symptoms which is what autism in one kid, in the other after years of wondering what the devil is going on ----- it turned out to be bipolar.

It is people like you that want me to shoot myself. You obviously don't have an autistic child and therefore you mock our children's pains and give us all kind of flawed links to other people like yourself that think this is some kind of game. I will tell you one thing: I went from believing in doctors to absolutely dispise them. I absolutely dispise big pharma companies that hurt our children. As for your nonsense about "Have the anti-vaccinationists come up with a new biologically-implausible hypothesis for researchers to test? If not, then what is there to debunk?", let me give you my daughter's scenario to debunk and then work on it: she was given 4 vaccines at 4 months while having RSV by an idiot pediatrician that can quote Paul prOffit. Here are the 4 vaccines: DTP, IPV, Hib, and PCV7/PPV23. 24 hours after the vaccines we were in the ER (and admitted to the hospital). After recovering from that "incident" she was autistic. Now, let's have someone debunk that. And then let's move to the next case... I can tell you one thing: VACCINES CAUSED MY DAUGHTER'S AUTISM. You can keep mocking us... We know who is right.

Oddly, my comment pointing this out appears not to have made it through moderation. Can't think why not. Whoever is moderating the comments here can email me if there is a good reason why this comment was not approved.

Thank you for answering your own question and putting the record straight Nick.

The issue here is not Brian Deer’s inaccurate article ,or Andrew Wakefield’s research ..It’s the threat to the nation’s health by the criticism and subsequent lack of faith in the vaccination program. That how the establishment see it anyhow ..They see their role as guardians of the nation’s health , and all’s fair under that banner.
The fact that they hardy speak from a position of strength, they are utterly bankrupt.. seems to have escaped them .The best thing this community can do is to point out the inadequacies of the medics role in finding the cause
The people running this site have an initiative ..join forces, i have .. https://www.stopcallingitautism.org/
My site .. http://www.yeast-candida-infections-uk.co.uk/

"James Cole - the rise in rate of autism, along with a number of autoimmune disorders and allergies, has been generally in line with the increase in the vaccination program."

Really? And what has happened when MMR uptake has fallen? What happened after the removal of ethylmercury? In Canada, autism rates increased coincident with a decrease in MMR vaccination rates (i.e., as uptake of MMR vaccine went down, autism diagnoses continued to rise). In Sweden and Denmark, in 1990, an increase in the diagnosis of autism began in both countries and continued through to the end of the study period in 2000, despite the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 1992.

I'll tell you what the increase in diagnoses of autism has been in line with - the decrease in other diagnoses. Have you read the papers by Shattuck and Baird et al? What did you make of them? Do you have any relevant criticisms of these papers?

Shattuck points out that higher autism prevalence was significantly associated with corresponding declines in the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities – children who once would have been categorised as having mental retardation or learning disabilities are now classified as being on the autistic spectrum. Would you disagree with Shattuck? If so, on what basis do you disagree?

James Cole - the rise in rate of autism, along with a number of autoimmune disorders and allergies, has been generally in line with the increase in the vaccination program. There are numerous theories as to how there could be a link, some quite plausible, which you can read about if you take the time to educate yourself a little; but the illnesses have a complexity that will take years if not decades for science to understand.

Your sole contribution to this crisis is to claim there is no link between vaccination and autism without providing one single study to back up the claim.

Oh, and by the way - Jenni Allen seems to be slightly confused with regard to Adam Rutherford's work for THES. His article (singular, you will note) was published long after the THES was sold by News International.

"James Cole - please provide a link to a study that supports your claim that the link between vaccination and autism has been debunked. Just one such study will do, but it needs to study vaccination and autism, rather than just ethyl mercury or MMR.

If you have trouble finding such a study, keep looking, and don't come back until you have found it."

The purported link was originally between MMR and autism (debunked), then it was ethylmercury (debunked), and then immune overload (debunked). Have the anti-vaccinationists come up with a new biologically-implausible hypothesis for researchers to test? If not, then what is there to debunk?

Every purported link between vaccination and autism raised by the anti-vaccinationists that has been studied has been found to be baseless. Immune overload, ethylmercury, MMR. Every time the goalposts are shifted, researchers look into whether the new claim is true. So far, none of them have been.

Julie - I think it is the 'cornered rat' syndrome. Those insisting that autism and vaccines are in no way related must sense they are fighting a losing battle - so they coninue, with ever increasing venom, to harrass their chosen scapegoat - Dr Wakefield - but there is a sense of desperation to it all now. This wouldn't be continuing if they felt they had won a war. There are too many parents AND doctors unprepared to accept the deception they try to blind us with.

Thanks John for so aptly teasing apart all the minutiae of this sordid affair. I also complained to BBC and a reply came back saying they had noted the points raised. I won't hold my breath.

"What harm are you referring to here Alli? I presume it isn't autism. The purported link between vaccination and autism has been debunked, Wakefield's flawed paper (and I'm being generous calling it 'flawed') has been fully retracted, and factors such as diagnostic substitution can account for the rise in diagnoses of autism."

James Cole - please provide a link to a study that supports your claim that the link between vaccination and autism has been debunked. Just one such study will do, but it needs to study vaccination and autism, rather than just ethyl mercury or MMR.

If you have trouble finding such a study, keep looking, and don't come back until you have found it.

"The BBC are as complicit in the harm to children as all the others you mention with their cosy business connections because they will do nothing to end the charade."

What harm are you referring to here Alli? I presume it isn't autism. The purported link between vaccination and autism has been debunked, Wakefield's flawed paper (and I'm being generous calling it 'flawed') has been fully retracted, and factors such as diagnostic substitution can account for the rise in diagnoses of autism.

No, they are not ashamed, because they have no shame.
They do not see the faces of the injured children, so they have not empathy.

I think a lot of psych is bull shit but a recent psych study says that 96 percent of the population will give electric shocks to someone for a little money.

So, there are only 4 percent of the population that would be appalled that people are being poisoned by what we have been taught since from the crib is safe and nessacary.

So Rutherford is part of the 96 percent of the human race.

All of these people and their attitudes, lies, cover ups keep me for years wondering if I ever got my hands around them how I could make them pay that would equal what they did to my family.

I know now, i don't want them to be tortured, beaten,jail, or any of that - what I want is for them to lose their career, job, money, and publically riduculed - same as they did to Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Then I would be satisfied

Dr Rutherford has an interesting career. It includes writing articles for The Times Educational Supplement. Murdoch again!! No wonder he was so chummy with Brian Deer on his BBC Radio 4'Science Betrayed' programme. Two commissioned Murdoch journalists together!! How jolly!!

Rutherford also writes a Guardian blog -another of Deer's specialities!!

I was interested to read that Rutherford 'hates bullshit'!!
Sorry Adam ---you have been well and truly bulls***ted by the BMJ, courtesy of Godlee and Deer!!!

John what an eye opener.
Even when they are caught with their pants down, they don't bother to explain themselves. The BBC are as complicit in the harm to children
as all the others you mention with their cosy business connections because they will do nothing to end the charade. The BBC license fee is another govt tax caring not on jot for the opinions of viewers. Keep shining that light on them.

Yes-I complained too; the following is extracted from my letter. I enclose the BBC's response, which looks suspiciously like delaying tactics!! There is still time for other complaints about this programme. The BBC website is included with their response. (As regards the GMC finding the clinicians 'guilty' of failing to obtain the correctly numbered and lettered ethical approval, the parents' consent form for the 2 EXTRA biopsies sent to Dr Wakefield's laboratory team DOES comply FULLY with all ETHICAL requirements. The numbering or lettering is irrelevant.)

Dr Adam Rutherford has used the three recent BMJ articles in a series 'Secrets of the MMR scare' by investigative journalist Brian Deer as 'source' material for this programme. Deer has NO medical scientific or legal qualifications whatsoever and has based his 'evidence' against the Wakefield et al Lancet article 1998, on illegally obtained confidential GP records obtained for his Sunday Times articles 2004, WELL BEFORE the GMC case against Wakefield Murch and Walker Smith 2007-2010. On the programme Deer refers to the children's developmental records, used by the Royal Free researchers as 'baby books'!! What EXACTLY does the non medical Deer know about 'children's developmental records'? He failed to explain.

Fiona Godlee, Editor of the BMJ and co author of the accompanying Editorial 'Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent', featured on the programme. She correctly pointed out that the GMC trial did NOT find the 1998 Wakefield et al Lancet article fraudulent nor did the panel dispute any of the observations, findings or hypotheses within the paper. The 'fraudulent' claims by Deer and Godlee et al have been 'commissioned and manufactured' purely by the BMJ. This journal is almost entirely funded by Pharmaceutical interests including vaccine manufacturers Merck and GSK. Dr Godlee, in a recent BMJ article has ADMITTED failure to disclose these BMJ conflicts of interest following the three DEER BMJ articles; in her words, 'It did not occur to me'.

ALL of the Lancet 12 children, plus a large number of other children, including my grandson, PROPERLY referred by their GPs were PROPERLY investigated and diagnosed by Professor Walker Smith and his clinical team. Parental permission was obtained for two EXTRA biopsies.
Bear with me -this is from the parental consent form; I can e-mail a redacted copy of the actual form if you require it for proof:-

"Your child has been referred for diagnostic colonoscopy and/or endoscopy. Several small pieces of tissue (biopsies) are taken during the procedure for diagnostic purposes. Clinic inflammatory bowel diseases are still little understood and their cause is unknown. It is therefore of great value for laboratory research to have such biopsies available to study how inflammation in the bowel develops and is influenced by treatment. Your permission is asked to agree for two extra biopsies to be taken for these purposes. Whether or not you agree to this will in no way influence your assessment or treatment."

(My daughter agreed to this and signed the form; the date was March 99, AFTER the Lancet article.)The form is headed with the names:- Professor Walker-Smith (Head of Dept), Dr Simon Murch and Dr Alan Phillips (Sen Lecturers) and Dr Mike Thomson (consultant)

The GMC hearings are NOT court proceedings but are quasi judicial. Their recent 'verdicts' include allowing Dr Jane Barton known to have killed several elderly patients with overdoses, was allowed to keep her licence to practise medicine.

Professor Walker-Smith was kind and compassionate and VERY professional and we are very grateful for the care and treatment accorded my grandson 1998-2001. This excellent clinician was a highly regarded paediatric gastroenterologist with a worldwide reputation. How dare the GMC 'waste' Professor Walker-Smith’s expertise and reputation on the word of a nasty unqualified little 'hack' like Brian Deer. Professor Murch was exonerated of all charges by the GMC. Godlee and Deer failed to mention that. The GMC 'trial' costing around £7 million was instigated as a result of a complaint by Brian Deer. No parent has ever complained; most regard Wakefield et al as 'heroes'.

Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of all this is NOT about the minutiae of what the researchers wrote about these children's medical histories in THAT Lancet paper; after all, this was just a small clinical study involving only twelve children whose symptoms seemed to indicate that something novel and (then) unusual was going on. Wakefield NEVER claimed an association between autism and MMR, but he DID ADVISE going back to single doses for Measles Mumps and Rubella until more research was carried out. The UK government withdrew single jabs on the NHS shortly afterwards, although the single measles jab had been in use for more than 20 years and the single rubella jab was introduced later, with few apparent problems.

Since 1988, when MMR was introduced, there has been an exponential increase in autism. In the UK around one child in 60 is now autistic; many of these children also have bowel disease and other problems including epilepsy. My grandson is now a voting adult, still autistic, still unwell and living with constant pain in his guts and epilepsy. There are countless thousands of children like him.

THAT's the REAL scandal!!

The BBC is supposed to be independent. I 'suggest' a bit more research from the likes of Adam Rutherford et al before wasting our licence fees on this blatant Government and Pharmaceutical industry propaganda.

* Those Danish epidemiological studies purporting to show no post MMR increases in autism all involved Dr Poul Thorsen, who recently 'absconded' with more than 2 million dollars of US taxpayer's money, supposed to pay for yet another 'study'. The US authorities have made no attempt to prosecute or locate him, but he is being tried in Denmark for-wait for it- TAX EVASION!"

BBC Response:-

Dear Mrs Allan

Reference CAS-678205-FGR76W

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

We wanted to let you know that we've received your recent complaint and will respond as soon as possible, however we hope you understand that the time taken to do so can depend on the nature of your complaint and the number of other complaints we're currently dealing with.

We issue public responses to concerns which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at:

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email - in the meantime, we would like to thank you again for contacting us with your concerns, we appreciate your patience in awaiting a response.

Well said John.
Why is nobody willing to stand up and take responsibility for either their own mistakes or for the errors of the businesses in which they work? It isn't ok to destroy the lives of innocent individuals in order to protect ones own back or business. The Media have shown their complicity time and time again. Secret injunctions are rife and no one is interested in giving even a balanced view of an event or issue.

Another blinder John. Obviously when the BBC make up the budget of where the monies is going to be spent on what for the coming year ,productions ,anything attempting to show Dr Wakefield in a bad light shall be bought instantly by the BBC and shown. Where as, anything showing the real side of Autism(which I have never seen on the BBC or anywhere), is not allocated 1 penny of budget spending. A question to ask the BBC would be how much of its budget does it allocate to pro-Merck "movies" and how much is the budget for showing real disabled mmr vaccine damaged children. Michael Fitzpatrick well that’s a reviewer and a half with no conflicts anyone needs a refresher ..as the BBC need John Stone..